nationfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Coalition Against Inactive Congressmen
I am offended by this. Matt is hardly active but he does vote when a big issue arises, and does classify as semi-active. I think that this has less to do with these people being inactive, and that this has a good amount more to do with them being competition for you. I don't suppose that it matters though, really. You ran a similar campaign last year, and it was widely ineffective. — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 23:46, December 14, 2012 (UTC) I am also offended by this. I am trying to get more active on lovia and instead of working with me you declare me inactive and tell people only to give support votes for me. :( Daembrales (talk) 00:31, December 15, 2012 (UTC) I'm against this. Personal attacks don't help anyone. This should probably be deleted or at least significantly reworked. 77topaz (talk) 01:21, December 15, 2012 (UTC) This indeed ain't constructive. These users are easily "activated". F.e. Martijn Mans will vote on an issue immediately after notifying him. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:55, December 15, 2012 (UTC) Then delete this, but they don't add anything to our debates. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to see a congress were literally we only have like 65 members (under the system) active because we are try to be nice. It makes no since to vote for someone who is active two months in the year (December, they campaign, January, they collect their 6-7 seats, and in February, they are outta here....) But Mans isn't active, before his twenty edits since September he didn't make one since January which again was about elections and voting. But Oos you of all people should know, election after election since i've even been here in 2010 and you since 2008(9?) and election after election we have newcomers or the ones that edit five times every five months and they say "Hell yeah, Politics! Lovia! I Love this country and will be active." Yet they disappear a month after look back at each congress. Two of them haven't responded and won't until you "activate" them, or come back after 4 months, which again maybe brings me to the conclusion that either you know them and tell them to go on and vote and run, in which case they are just voting at certain occasions. Why elect someone who edits two months in the year, edits then 5 times a month in the next year, votes on maybe 4-5 bills and then because there is so many of those inactives, they take up a good 25-35 seats in congress and make impossible to get something passed. Again think about this, we need more users that discuss and move diolauge, not one's that wave the party flag and just claim they'll be active when they aren't Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:31, December 15, 2012 (UTC) 2007* :P I agree partially, but putting this on personal ain't the way to do it. People who are not going to vote on inactives already know whom they are gonna vote for. Also, Martijn Mans probably is not effected by this, as he is in a one-man party and will perhaps reach two or three seats. The real issue are people who gather support from within their party and then disappear. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:36, December 15, 2012 (UTC) I removed the Don't Vote, Or last vote options to "Known Inactive" and "Close to Inactive", what you do with that information is up to you. But still it's the sum of those 4-5 congressmen who run, from a party, gain collectivley 20-25 seats, and then there is those who run like him still gaining 3-5 seats and then leave, Until next elections. I would say 30 congressmen are then gone on each vote, and then you have to factor in "actives" that are maybe away for school or personal reasons, but will return, and one that issue they are absent maybe totalling 40 votes. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:41, December 15, 2012 (UTC) True. I do believe hardly-actives should have a say - like one seat per candidate, but that's hard to achieve :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:43, December 15, 2012 (UTC) Well the reason (lovian backstory for when we write our Lovian autobiograhpies) i want to included the "more votes = more seats = parliamentary democracy" was to make lovia 1) more real (having more congressmen) 2) more "politically real" (how does a party win the PM but have maybe the smallest majority in congress, and now is a Parliamentary democracy) and 3) by the language (meaning more votes = more seats) it would mean those who (like oos) get 30 votes, get more seats to show a proper reflection from the voters. I really did think it would widen the gap between Bigger Active politicans and Smaller Inactive Politicans, but maybe I forgot one thing. This is politics, people vote party line over country. I can already tell you how i will vote, it's the same every year, Me Horton, Oos. nothing more. Why? Active, one of them is my party, and the other one runs the wikia. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:52, December 15, 2012 (UTC) Well, I think there is some improvement. There used to be a half inactive Congress (hence the term "rightist block of inactivity"). Now, we can function for nearly 70%. However, we should really work to get this up. One thing to note though, is that most people no longer vote if a proposal is already accepted or declined. Therefore, less active users are generally voting less, because when they see something in Congress it is probably already accepted or declined. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:00, December 15, 2012 (UTC) I think that this should be out of character. In reality, the inactive congresspeople wouldn't actually be inactive as we always have enough to pass laws. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:02, December 15, 2012 (UTC) @Oos - True, I think under the new system their is improvement (some) from about 10-20% of a more active congress. True TM, but like Oos said, 70% active is too small. We need 85% at minimum, so even with opposition it gets passed. Again this isn't a personal attack but more or less, i hope, a wake up call to put first, active people then ideology.Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:30, December 15, 2012 (UTC) Well, hopefully I can get Daembrales to be more active. :) —TimeMaster (talk • ) 04:43, December 16, 2012 (UTC)